Should the NRA take the initiative on future gun legislation

S

surg_res

New member
I have been an NRA member and financial supporter for about 15 years. I am a staunch supporter of the 2nd amendment to its roots, time and again defending the right to own firearms as not only a right, but an American responsibility. This privilege clearly established by our founding fathers to keep power in the hands of the people--so that whatever happens to a government can happen and tyranny will not ultimately prevail. I do not think that the NRA (more or less the most powerful representative that gun owners have in the politics of this land) and conservative law-makers can stay on the defensive forever. Even though we all understand that sporadic gun violence and mass killings are a rare way to die (literally a molecule in the bucket of bad luck), we also understand that it is just a matter of time that the mob rule of this nation will change the way guns are owned, and change it in a way that threatens this sacred liberty. As in any conflict, I'd ask that they take the initiative and be on the offensive. They need to introduce legislation that tightens the reigns. Why? Because when there will be tighter gun laws, regulations and barriers to ownership, I'd like to be the one that writes them, not the socialists. Clearly, if foreign born 'citizens' turned radicalized domestic terrorists are able to obtain weapons and use them on such short order, the pendulum has swung too far. Is this a sacrifice that I'm willing to live with yes, but, the socialist mob will see to it to use this propaganda fully and in the end they have their way with our rights, which will be in their best interest and not ours.
 
Last edited:
That is a time honored business strategy actually, to co-opt regulation by helping write it, under the view that if the business doesn't the government will, and be far worse.
 
Can we can the 'socialist' rants? We discuss things in terms of antigun and progun. Your opinion on other political issues not really our cup of tea.

I know emotions are high but I've had to dismiss some folks for losing it (not that this post reached that level).

The issue is whether progun folks should take the lead in gun control legislation?
 
Not going to happen with Obama or Hillary having veto power.
1st things 1st, we must get trump elected and not loose control of the house or Senate.
We dont usually have all three. If we do... Time to put the hammer down!!
 
Glen your sure to have your hands full trying to police that idea.

Its sort of like, lets grab these Hydrogen atoms out of this water. But you cant touch the Oxygen atoms.

Any 2nd amendment issue is 90% politics. If it were not we wouldn't need to even talk about it. It would just be fact.
 
Glenn, with all respect that isn't a rant but simply an opinion. If you want to boot me for standing by what I stated, do it. Anti-gun, socialist, its all the same to me. I've been visiting this forum for 11 years and would be happy to give that up if this isn't the RIGHT place to discuss the matter.
 
Our rules:

. Topics and conduct that will not be tolerated:

Multiple registrations
Drive-by cut and paste posting
Cross posting (Posting the same, or substantially the same, thread/topic in multiple forums)
Political Advocacy posts, or any purely political topic. However, some very few exceptions may be made.
Conspiracy threads or posts
Posts or threads on Race, Religion, and Sexuality
The End Of The World As We Know It (TEOTWAWKI), AKA: SHTF or Doomsday threads and Zombie threads
Knowingly and willfully advocating violation of a standing federal or state law (any state)
Violating our Copyrighted Material Policy
Click to expand...

1. It might be the case that mentioning politics can be relevant. However, pure politics isn't.

2. Terms like 'socialist mob' add nothing.

3. One has the freedom to go elsewhere. I don't have to ban anyone unless they are totally out of line.

I made a suggestion. As a customer of forums, you can just find something more suited to your rhetorically style and interests.
 
personally I feel that changing a politicians mind(stripes so to speak) is a waste of time

maybe our fight should be for the publics mind. Maybe instead of JUST fighting gun control laws, we(our NRA, GOA...) should try to educate the public about the real facts(who is committing crimes, what they use, how weak the legal system has been, how the FBI fails to keep terrorists in prison or under watch,how gun control is a huge failure like prohibition was...)...an endless list, many topics

education has helped many a cause in this country. We are once again being bombarded with gun control media nonsense.

If our message was out there, we could change the tide. Time to add to our strategy.

JMHO
 
I appreciate the copy of the house rules--always good to note. I regret that a more meaningful discussion couldn't have been generated. Ultimately, the ochlocrats will change way in which we own firearms. The talk about how and when will remain nothing more than our entertainment.
 
Nope, they shouldn't right now, because the Democrats will then only want further restrictions down the line. Unless the political winds are absolutely against them, they should not.
 
Well, I guess I'll get flamed, but...

Unfortunately, the art of skilled negotiation is practically nonexistence in society. Give them something they want, but they'll need to trade something you want. Use a little spin, like the other side does. Confusing people with technical jargon about what an assault weapon is or isn't is a losing strategy in the long run. Complaining about 20k gun laws won't motivate anyone either. Not convincing talking points, true or not.

Turn the argument on the other guy. If the other side wants "universal" checks, then push for your version of universal checks and the universal right to carry...50 state shall issue concealed carry. We might pick up a few new gun owners along the way with those kinds of strategies.

People want action, even if its not very effective, they really won't know the difference, anyway. Learn to trade points that don't matter, for ones that do. Make your side look reasonable and the other guy less so.
 
We need to know what an objective measure of success of "reasonable" gun legislation is before we start discussing possible paths to that goal. The current stated measure of success is, to the best of my knowledge "not one more life" (I find it interesting that the word innocent seems to have disappeared). If that is the only measure of success you will never reach it even given an ultimate ban on all legal private ownership.
 
The idea of working with public opinion rather than against it is a great way to approach the issues facing our nation today. If all the NRA stands for is to never allow anything that might actually keep guns out of the hands of terrorists and nut cases, that is counter productive IMO. And another part of leading is to stay in the lead, and keep trying diligently to work with our governing bodies to satisfy the ever changing needs of our nation.

It seems intuitive--if guns are used to murder large numbers of innocent people-- that eventually the tide of public opinion will be overwhelmingly in favor of more strict gun regulations and enforcement. I really think the best we can hope for is to ask our representatives in government--including the NRA--to preserve the essence of the 2nd Amendment while protecting innocent people from misuse of deadly weapons. The people that died in Orlando lost their right to live. I think we need to respect that right ahead of any other right.
 
I don’t think we can sit in the corner with our arms folded while the majority of news outlets, politicians and average Americans are talking about gun control. We via the NRA need a seat at the table and maybe just maybe we can see some real rational dialogue. The sad thing is politicians of both parties have learned to use wedge issue like gun control as a fund raising tool and I suspect some of them have no desire to reach any real consensus.
 
the NRA taking the initiative on gun control is like taking the initiative on compromising your own rights.

keep in mind that if anyone proposes a gun law, before it gets passed it gets gut and stuffed by the anti gun politicians. Why open that door?

We've maxed out on compromises and infringements on our rights, to no effect on crime. What the NRA really needs to do is push for legislation that affect criminals, hit them harder.... and propose legislation to improve our mental health care. We need to be screaming loudly for things like that in the face of more gun control.
 
Last edited:
I say sit tight and wait for what November brings us. If things turn sour for us come 2017, then regroup and consider all options.
 
What proposals would anyone here actually consider that the NRA could proffer? Seriously what would we be OK with?

My only idea is this. Some seem OK with the idea, while others don't... But I'm OK with barring the purchase of weapons from someone on the terror watch list so long as there is judicial review. I know someone bent on terror can get it through illegal means (or a private transaction), but at least the media won't report about how it slipped through the cracks and the terrorist purchased a gun legally.

That's the only thing, at this point, I would even consider conceding. And only if judicial review is involved. Maybe other ideas that haven't been proposed or I haven't thought of...
 
If the NRA is sitting on an idea that does not infringe on American rights, will satisfy anti-gun people, is not going to bankrupt the country and has some slight chance of working, I'd like to hear it. Now could be a good time to move in, introduce it as a calculated move, and redefine what the conversation means going forward. Then when the next step is pushed, it can be demonstrated that the NRA (or other gun rights advocates) are not against working towards effective measures but will still fight infringement.

Unfortunately, I don't see them having any such solution to put forward.
 
As with politics on the whole, it seems to me that there are very vocal parties at the outer edges of the spectrum, such as anti-gun advocates and pro-gun supporters here. The net result of this is that there is a very large proportion who have malleable views on the subject: neither strongly for nor strongly against.

That is the group who should be focussed on. The Anti-gun lobby have been doing just that with media coverage and genuinely concerned activist groups such as the "Mothers against..." movements. Their not trying to convince you lot on here about guns, they're trying to convince those sitting on that very spacious fence.

Pro-gun groups should be doing the same. I don't mean Lapierre talking about how we need to be the first responders, good guy with a gun etc. These are alien concepts for that undecided majority: they've never trained for point shooting or weak hand shooting because they've never imagined being in a situation where that might be necessary. Why else do people walk down the road looking at smart phone screen rather than the world around them? They feel detached and unthreatened.

That population segment needs, at the very least, to be educated about guns. Debunking the myths. They need to be from someone they'll listen to and not take as lecture. So the likes of Nugent and Alex Whatsisface are out.

Now imagine someone like Jolie or Longoria or De Niro (all allegedly pro-gun) talking to the camera about how a 12g doesn't blow people off the ground, how of the 30k gun deaths, XX% are due to gang violence which is utterly unrelated to legal gun ownership, that most gun owners religiously follow Cooper's 4 rules etc.

I don't know the actual myths that need to be raised, but you get the point.

It shouldn't be about telling people they are wrong, but more a case of "Here are some facts you probably haven't heard before. Check them for yourselves. Now do you still think is being proposed is actually the solution or just an easy stop-gap to keep you happy?". It's about giving people the information to form opinions of their own rather than having the handed to them by disinformation...

Either way, it seems that something has got to change: banging the same old drums isn't going to work forever and looking at it from the outside, it seems the NRA needs to evolve and adapt. It did that in '77, so perhaps it's now time, 40 years on, to take stock of the real world situation and do it again. How is partly up to all of you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top